This post on Patreon: www.patreon.com/posts/reconstitution-117404911?Link& This post on Soundcloud (audio only): soundcloud.com/socialismforall/the-reconstitution-of-the-communist-party-1945-by-john-williamson-cpusa-marxist-theory-history This post on Spotify: creators.spotify.com/pod/show/socialismforall/episodes/The-Reconstitution-of-the-Communist-Party-1945-by-John-Williamson--CPUSA-Marxist-Theory--History-e2rvo94 This post on Substack: open.substack.com/pub/socialismforall/p/the-reconstitution-of-the-communist?r=2wwfgr&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I was talking to my Greens coordinator the other day about a dues based mass left party and they said that it would hinder the membership process due to the threat of expulsion and would be overall undemocratic. I said that there may come a time when the party is bigger and more active that not paying dues might seem undemocratic, and I think they misunderstood me. Connecting with union leaders, figuring out how to help out at local strikes and union events seems like a good strategy for getting people in here that are already willing to pay into a thing to make it work for everybody. This piece really got the wheels turning, thank you.
Thanks S4A. This was much better than previous presentations from the book and the author was spot on. I think the term "club" or "clubbing" is the local term for worker's councils who are associated with the county's worker's council which continues upward towards the state and national level of the Marxist Leninist political party. Unfortunately, the CPUSA remains revisionist even after attempts to set it on the correct course. Furthermore, the winds of revisionism remain strong around the globe.
Some communities are church based, and that platform should be used (in a principled way of course). The church is prominent in the black community for example. The church is a site of social gathering and charity, food donations, for example.
@ZalamaTheDragonGod Hard to do that "principled" organizing when the church authorities are speaking against the existence of your political movement though
Feel free to delete this as it has (I think) a revisionist take on atleast part of one thing. Thank you for asking what we think. I often too much seek the point of view of the person making the video. I don't entirely know what to think to this audiobook. It seems largely logical but I know way to little about the CPA/cpusa or its history. The comment from Browder (idk his name) essentially saying that the communist party should try to adopt the views of the masses and not be independent. That sounded very outright non communist not socialist more liberal. This person that you read he seemed to me to be overly focused on the name (which I think the name probably should get some focus), and he seemed not to consider or elaborate on the option of choosing a new name. He also I think suggested getting groups to meet at the communist party headquarters am I right there? I don't know what to think to that. Before this video, I was thinking I might try to see if I could make an Australian communist party branch in my town and suggest the members to go out and have their communist party meetings in public. This persons suggestion sounds kind of like a reverse of "my" idea. I think John Williamson's suggestion sounds like it might leak communist party secret information out. But probably any activity has that potential. On democratic centralism. I think I agree with the basic idea of democratic centralism and that it seemingly works well in practice in the past, so I do think I want a party to implement a form of democratic centralism, But I don't know how it should run. So I don't know what to comment on John Williamson's formulation. so I do think I want a party to implement a form of democratic centralism, but I'm concerned democratic centralism could be easily co-opted if the communists of the party don't take it upon themselves to study (yes more study) "election science" just study it but keep a Marxist Leninist view point above any neo-liberal or anarchist-ish analysis. Though this viewpoint I lean towards is obviously revisionist at best. For an example undemocratic thing that I personally have never heard Marxist Leninist apply to communist party or other workers organisations (I'm probably just too inexperienced), and I would associate more with capitalist election scientists or capitalist sympathisers who just want reform : First past the post voting (FPTP) or plurality voting. This voting system gets voters to put an X in one candidates box on the ballot and that's it. That's all the information it allows the voter to give us: that she likes a given candidate the most. The candidate with most votes wins even if they don't have a majority. Now capitalist election scientists I believe tend to agree that first past the post is one of the worst voting methods possible. Score voting is probably the most expressive. Let's say a socialist country uses first past the post voting in the local levels of organisations (such as the "Smooth sailing Cafe" branch on 6 Green St or whatever) to then elect a representative of their "collective" and the representatives of the local collectives are then the city council members "city councilors". For each "collective" suppose the one winner was voted for by 50% of the collectives members. Then the actual members of the city council were only voted on by 50% of the population. When the city council votes on something they only need 50%+1 to get a vote through their city council chambers. But that's 50%+1 of 50%. So around 25%. So the representatives of 25% of a cities population are needed to get a vote through the city council. This only gets less and less representative when you have representatives voting on or deciding other representatives. Such as an education minister deciding who will lead a department of education. And then the department of education deciding who will lead below them etc. Thank you
This post on Patreon: www.patreon.com/posts/reconstitution-117404911?Link&
This post on Soundcloud (audio only): soundcloud.com/socialismforall/the-reconstitution-of-the-communist-party-1945-by-john-williamson-cpusa-marxist-theory-history
This post on Spotify: creators.spotify.com/pod/show/socialismforall/episodes/The-Reconstitution-of-the-Communist-Party-1945-by-John-Williamson--CPUSA-Marxist-Theory--History-e2rvo94
This post on Substack: open.substack.com/pub/socialismforall/p/the-reconstitution-of-the-communist?r=2wwfgr&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Thank you s4a, we like to learn because you do well the teaching.
Damn, you're pumping out so many great books lately, S4A. Thank you for your hard work as always, comrade!
I was talking to my Greens coordinator the other day about a dues based mass left party and they said that it would hinder the membership process due to the threat of expulsion and would be overall undemocratic. I said that there may come a time when the party is bigger and more active that not paying dues might seem undemocratic, and I think they misunderstood me. Connecting with union leaders, figuring out how to help out at local strikes and union events seems like a good strategy for getting people in here that are already willing to pay into a thing to make it work for everybody. This piece really got the wheels turning, thank you.
Thanks S4A. This was much better than previous presentations from the book and the author was spot on. I think the term "club" or "clubbing" is the local term for worker's councils who are associated with the county's worker's council which continues upward towards the state and national level of the Marxist Leninist political party. Unfortunately, the CPUSA remains revisionist even after attempts to set it on the correct course. Furthermore, the winds of revisionism remain strong around the globe.
ORGANIZE ORGANIZE ORGANIZE
I definitely agree that this was significantly better
I've heard comrades suggest organizing in churches, and I have to say, give that a very hard pass.
Some communities are church based, and that platform should be used (in a principled way of course). The church is prominent in the black community for example. The church is a site of social gathering and charity, food donations, for example.
may as well organize within the Republican Party.
@ZalamaTheDragonGod Hard to do that "principled" organizing when the church authorities are speaking against the existence of your political movement though
I wonder how the organization changed at the summit of the red scare
Feel free to delete this as it has (I think) a revisionist take on atleast part of one thing.
Thank you for asking what we think.
I often too much seek the point of view of the person making the video.
I don't entirely know what to think to this audiobook. It seems largely logical but I know way to little about the CPA/cpusa or its history.
The comment from Browder (idk his name) essentially saying that the communist party should try to adopt the views of the masses and not be independent.
That sounded very outright non communist not socialist more liberal.
This person that you read he seemed to me to be overly focused on the name (which I think the name probably should get some focus),
and he seemed not to consider or elaborate on the option of choosing a new name.
He also I think suggested getting groups to meet at the communist party headquarters am I right there?
I don't know what to think to that.
Before this video, I was thinking I might try to see if I could make an Australian communist party branch in my town and suggest the members to go out and have their communist party meetings in public.
This persons suggestion sounds kind of like a reverse of "my" idea.
I think John Williamson's suggestion sounds like it might leak communist party secret information out. But probably any activity has that potential.
On democratic centralism.
I think I agree with the basic idea of democratic centralism and that it seemingly works well in practice in the past,
so I do think I want a party to implement a form of democratic centralism,
But I don't know how it should run.
So I don't know what to comment on John Williamson's formulation.
so I do think I want a party to implement a form of democratic centralism,
but I'm concerned democratic centralism could be easily co-opted
if the communists of the party don't take it upon themselves to study (yes more study) "election science" just study it but keep a Marxist Leninist view point above any neo-liberal or anarchist-ish analysis.
Though this viewpoint I lean towards is obviously revisionist at best.
For an example undemocratic thing that I personally have never heard Marxist Leninist apply to communist party or other workers organisations (I'm probably just too inexperienced),
and I would associate more with capitalist election scientists or capitalist sympathisers who just want reform
:
First past the post voting (FPTP) or plurality voting. This voting system gets voters to put an X in one candidates box on the ballot and that's it.
That's all the information it allows the voter to give us: that she likes a given candidate the most.
The candidate with most votes wins even if they don't have a majority.
Now capitalist election scientists I believe tend to agree that first past the post is one of the worst voting methods possible.
Score voting is probably the most expressive.
Let's say a socialist country uses first past the post voting in the local levels of organisations
(such as the "Smooth sailing Cafe" branch on 6 Green St or whatever)
to then elect a representative of their "collective" and the representatives of the local collectives are then the city council members "city councilors".
For each "collective" suppose the one winner was voted for by 50% of the collectives members.
Then the actual members of the city council were only voted on by 50% of the population.
When the city council votes on something they only need 50%+1 to get a vote through their city council chambers.
But that's 50%+1 of 50%. So around 25%.
So the representatives of 25% of a cities population are needed to get a vote through the city council.
This only gets less and less representative when you have representatives voting on or deciding other representatives. Such as an education minister deciding who will lead a department of education.
And then the department of education deciding who will lead below them etc.
Thank you